Speaking at the Asia Society in New York on Thursday, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar debunked a recent Wall Street Journal report that claimed Washington had "tacit consent" of Islamabad for relentless drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas. She said that Pakistan agreed with the objective - elimination of violent extremists - but disagreed with the method. The use of unilateral strikes on Pakistani territory, she averred, is illegal, and a reason why the US is so unpopular in the country. Besides, she pointed out, "Pakistan needs to build popular support for its own efforts to crush armed militant groups, but this is impossible as long as the war is viewed as US interference."
Aside from what Pakistan thinks of the US drone war, its legality is being questioned in the US itself as well as at UN forums. UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings, Christ of Heyns, has been expressing grave concern over the issue. At a UN meeting in Geneva last June he questioned drone strikes wondering, "Are we to accept major changes to the international legal system which has been in existence since World War II and survived nuclear threats?" He pointed out that "killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as the war in Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place [like in Pakistan's tribal region] far from areas where it's recognised as being an armed conflict."
An equally, if not more important issue is that these attacks have claimed far greater number of civilian lives than militants'. Many in this country, wary of the extremists for the threat they pose to the peace and progress of this society, tend to believe Washington's narrative, which now stands effectively challenged by well-regarded institutions within the US. A just out investigative research study carried out by the law schools of two prestigious American universities, Stanford and New York University, says "In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling 'targeted killing' of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false." The study also corroborates earlier reports of secondary strikes on people trying to help victims of an initial attack, saying that secondary strikes have discouraged average civilians from coming to one another's rescue, and even inhibited the provision of emergency medical assistance from humanitarian workers. Heyns calls such attacks "war crimes." No wonder collateral damage - euphemism for civilian causalities - is as high as it is.
Those operating the drones of course have no qualms about killing Pakistanis. A report appearing in Newsweek a couple of months ago described target selection for what is known as "signature strikes" and/or "crowd killing". Former CIA Director Michael Hayden was quoted explaining "signature strikes" to Obama soon after he became president like this: "we can see that there are a lot of military-age males down there, men associated with terrorist activity, but we don't always know who they are." In other words, any young person in Pakistan's tribal areas is a target, and hence has a reason to fear and hate the US. This obviously would not be happening had the US accepted Pakistan's request for transfer of drone technology. Drones operated by Pakistani hands would kill, too, but only carefully tracked militants, not randomly selected crowds of young people. Obama's escalation of the drone war may serve well his re-election bid; the cost though is an increasing anti-Americanism in this part of the world.